Update Webinar to D&A Guideline Model 6.1 (ESC & Construction Association) - March 3rd 2026

Cannabis rules vs Alcohol

Some questions that outline some of the problems for contractors

❓ “If cannabis is legal, why are we still worried about it at work?”

“Because legality doesn’t equal fitness for duty. The issue isn’t legality — it’s impairment. The challenge is that our current tests don’t measure impairment the way alcohol testing does.”

❓ “Why can’t contractors just enforce zero tolerance?”

“Zero tolerance sounds simple, but in Canada it creates legal and human-rights risk because drug tests detect presence, not impairment. Contractors still have to accommodate disabilities and assess workers individually.”

❓ “Police use oral testing — why can’t workplaces do the same?”

“Police use oral fluid as one input, alongside observations and behaviour. In workplaces, test results often become the sole decision trigger, which is where problems arise.”

❓ “Doesn’t accommodation compromise safety?”

“Accommodation doesn’t mean allowing impairment. It means exploring safe alternatives where possible. In many cases, accommodation affects site access, not employment, and those need to be clearly distinguished.”

❓ “Are contractors pushing back because of labour shortages?”

“Labour shortages make the impact visible, but this isn’t about avoiding safety rules. It’s about retaining competent, safety-focused workers who aren’t impaired but fail presence-based tests.”

❓ “Isn’t random testing proven to improve safety?”

“In some jurisdictions with regulator-mandated programs, yes. In Canada, courts require evidence of a workplace problem before random drug testing is justified — especially where privacy is heavily protected.”

❓ “What’s the real cost to companies?"

“Beyond test fees, it’s lost productivity, delayed mobilization, repeat testing for different clients, and turnover of experienced workers. Those costs ultimately show up in project execution.”

❓ “What are contractors actually asking clients to change?”

“Not lower safety standards — better alignment. Clear separation between site access and employment decisions, consistent standards, and realistic use of testing tools.”

❓ “What would a better system look like?”

“One focused on fit-for-duty, not just test results. That means combining observation, clear policies, proportionate testing, and honest acknowledgement of what tests can and can’t prove.”

❓ “What happens if we don’t change anything?”

“We risk shrinking the skilled workforce, increasing churn, and undermining trust — all of which can increase safety risk rather than reduce it.”

“The safest systems are the ones workers trust, supervisors can defend, and clients can rely on — and that requires alignment, not absolutes.